Well, that was quick. The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on Friday evening ordered that same-sex marriages begin again in California, and after less than a day of weddings, Prop 8 advocates filed an emergency motion to halt the unions, claiming that they still had time to ask the Supreme Court to reconsider its decision to dismiss their challenge to a 2010 ruling that Prop 8 is unconstitutional. Kennedy, who is responsible for motions dealing with the Ninth Circuit, was swift in his response. The Associated Press reports that he "turned away the request on Sunday with no additional comment." Keep getting married, everyone!

Once again this proves that our vote in CA didnt even matter..Prop 8 won and the deviants come in and overturn the vote of the people..the local media here is enjoying every minute of it, showing over and over again men kissing other men and women kissing other women..its nauseating but you can see the pure delight on the reporters faces..they love showing this in our face

The correct interpretation of what Kennedy said is: “You little people have no say in this government (anymore). We will decide what is best for you, and please don’t wave that silly piece of paper you call The Constitution in our faces.”

13
posted on 06/30/2013 12:41:20 PM PDT
by jeffc
(The U.S. media are our enemy)

Some ‘catholic’ he is. Might as well tear out certain pages of the Bible which is very clear on its teachings against homosexuality. Those who practice and promote it won’t be included into heaven. What a rude horror awaits for so many.

Notice how the 4 reliable, leftist mutants gay parading on the SCOTUS never veer off course and lurch rightward. Its always one of our ‘conservatives’ taking the opposite left hand turns with that dubious honor.
So maddening-—put your treasure in heaven folks because this world is gonna blow-—no pun intended.

No but the states can start ignoring Supreme Court declarations. If Obama and Holder can decide which laws they will enforce, why can’t the States determine which Supreme Court rulings they will obey?

Amendment 10 to the US. Constitution: “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”

The only way the abuse of federal power will stop is when the states and the people stand up to it. Not unlike 1776.

25
posted on 06/30/2013 12:58:03 PM PDT
by Soul of the South
(Yesterday is gone. Today will be what we make of it.)

Arkansas tried that in 1957, but it ended badly when President Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne into Little Rock with bayonets fixed and orders to use those bayonets on white Southerners who dared to raise their hands in defiance to the Supreme Court and the authority of the federal government.

They have those same billboards near the Beverly Center(Since you seem to be familiar with the area) or on the MTA bus..there is a huge sign about “Homophobia” near La Cienaga/La Tijera Blvd. they love shoving this in our faces..they can talk about what is going on without showing men/men kissing each other every second..its disgusting but considering the media here are all pervert lovers of course they love promoting this

Supreme Court Justices can indeed be impeached but in the current Senate, you would need 22 Democrats to vote guilty and Barry Soetoro would get to nominate the replacement; I don’t think we want that.
Justice Samuel Chase was impeached but found not guilty in 1805.

I’m beginning to think the gays are a lot more than only 3%. After a rare trip to the mall yesterday, I swear every guy there looked gay and seemed to be shopping with their boyfriend. It’s hard to tell anymore.

A few years ago several different polls were taken, even the Allen Gutmacher institute which is a leftist organization connected with PP put the number around 2%, which is pretty consistent.

Of course, with recruitment going on in schools and the media, more may try perversion. Then the lie that “if you have had one “gay” thought, desire or experience, you ARE “gay” and can never ever change! You’re one of us, now!” kicks in. Teenagers are encouraged to “experiment” and then they are locked in via lies. Of course some still manage to leave the homo life, but if more knew the truth, more would make the attempt to leave it.

And the most popular recruitment method is adult homosexuals molesting young children and adolescents, that’s how most become homosexual. And now that they can foster and adopt children, or in the cse of females, have sperm donors, more children will “become” homosexual - either via being molested, or totally screwed up being around perverts during their formative years.

33
posted on 06/30/2013 1:36:45 PM PDT
by little jeremiah
(Courage is not simply one of the virtues, but the form of every virtue at the testing point. CSLewis)

On a positive note, I know black Obama voters who are disgusted by Obama’s support of gay “marriage”. I tell them vote Democrat and you get sodom & gomorrah. Huge impact. Democrats may lose Christian blacks over this.

Also goes to show you what horseshit the confirmation hearings were for Kagan and Sotomayor who we both knew going in were going to be 100% pro-gay and pro-anything Obama wanted.

Guess what? He still has a very good chance at getting one more justice and then after him? Hillary for 8 years and she would have a chance at getting 2 herself. Which would hands down change the country forever with zero hope of it ever being what it once was.

Roberts is a total disgrace and fraud and let me just call him it right now and here...A BASTARD.

40
posted on 06/30/2013 1:47:54 PM PDT
by My Favorite Headache
(In a world where I feel so small, I can't stop thinking big.)

That’s interesting. Why do we cave to 2%. Makes me sick. USA is becoming the laughing stock of the world with our gay president leading the way. I wonder if he knows that a lot of the population of the world suspect that he is gay?

The following information from a related thread consists of two parts. The first part explains how pro-gay activist judges in California inappropriately used PC interpretations of the equal protections clauses in both federal and state constitutions to argue that Prop. 8 was unconstitutonal.

The second part shows how activist justices sidestepped the constitutionality of Prop. 8 by ignoring both the Constitution and case precedent to argue that private citizens don't have the standing to have their cases heard by the Supreme Court.

Here is how activist judges in California ignored the constitutionality of Prop. 8. First, note that the equal protections clause in the California constitution is expressly based on the equal protections clause of Sec. 1 of the 14th Amendment.

However, there is glaring evidence in the federal Constitution that John Bingham, the main author of Sec. 1, had never intended for the equal protections clause to be applied the way that California judges have applied it to Prop. 8.

More specifically, if the equal protections clauses of the federal and California state constitutions were intended to be understood the way that California judges have applied them to Prop. 8, there would have been no need for the states to have subsequently ratified the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th amendments to the Constitution, these amendments establishing voting protections based on specific criteria.

In other words, today's activist judges would be forced to argue that the equal protections clause in Sec. 1 of 14A automatically established voting protections which weren't actually considered protected until expressly protected by the later amendments referenced above.

In fact, noting that the 19th Amendment was ratified to prohibit federal and state governments from prohibiting otherwise qualified voters from voting on the basis of sex, please consider the following. Prior to the ratification of 19A, the Supreme Court had decided in the case of Minor v. Happersett that the states could prohibit citizens from voting on the basis of sex regardless of 14A's equal protections clause. And similarly as 10A-protected state laws had legally prohibited otherwise qualified voters from voting on the basis of sex, legal majority California voters had likewise prohibited constitutionally unprotected gay rights concerning marriage by using the 10A-protected power of the people to approve Prop. 8.

So where the equal protections clause of Sec. 1 of 14A and the California constitution versus the 15th, 19th, 24th and 26th Amendments is concerned, what equal protections actually means is the following imo. Simply put, states can make laws which discriminate on the basis of criteria which are not expressly protected by the Constitution, as long as such laws are applied equally to everybody affected by constitutionally unprotected criteria.

Again, California judges inappropriately based their application of the equal protections clauses in both federal and state constitutions on PC interpretations of these clauses, these pro-gay activist judges essentially pulling the wool over the eyes of Constitution-ignorant citizens.

Next, the following information shows that the side-stepping response of pro-gay activist justices to Prop. 8 wrongly ignored both the Constitution and case precedent when they declared that private citizens don't have the standing to have their cases heard by the Supreme Court.

To begin with, the Founding States had made the Constitution's Clause 2 of Section 2 of Article III to clarify that the Supremes have original jurisdiction in any case where a state is a party as is the case with the Prop 8 case.

Article III, Section 2, Clause 2: In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction (emphasis added). In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make.

In fact, the 11th Amendment was ratified in response to the Supreme's decision in Chisholm v. Georgia, a case where private citizen had successfully sued a state that he was not a citizen of.

11th Amendment: The Judicial power of the United States shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any Foreign State.

Note that 11A does not prohibit private citizens from having the Supremes hear a case when suing the state in which they are a citizen, the simple fact that a state is a party in a case automatically putting the case in the original jurisdiction of the Supremes under Article III, Section 2, Clause 2 shown above. In fact, a good thing later resulted from a Supreme Court case in which a citizen sued her state.

More specifically, the Supremes had actually decided against private citizen Virgnia Minor's argument in the case of Minor v. Happersett that her citizenship automatically entitled her to vote regardless of a state law which allowed only qualified men to vote. But fortunately for Minor, the states subsequently ratified 19A which prohibits the states and feds from prohibiting otherwise qualified citizens to vote on basis of sex.

So based on the Supremes' constitutionally indefensible excuse not to hear private citizens argue their side of the Prop. 8 case against California, pro-gay activist justices are wrongy ignoring their oaths to protect and defend the Constitution not only as much as California judges are, but also as much as elected officials in the other two branches of the unconstitutionally big federal government are imo.

The bottom line concerning federal and state judicial activism is the following imo. Not only do patriots in California need to impeach their state's judges for their failure to uphold their oaths to protect and defend federal and state constitutions, but patriots need to win majority control in both Houses of Congress in 2014 in order to impeach Obama and Constitution-ignoring justices.

You may have a point. These Obama voters I mentioned believed it Zimmermen couldn’t have killed Saint Trayvon in self defense.
But a legal case may not trump the politics of “gay marriage” which Obama and Democrats support. Time will see.

—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.—

46
posted on 06/30/2013 2:33:30 PM PDT
by john316
(JOSHUA 24:15 ...choose you this day whom ye will serve...)

Yes. Federal judges can be impeached, convicted, and removed from the bench, (see Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution). It is possible to impeach federal judges, but is seldom done. Fifteen federal judges have been impeached since 1804. One was a Supreme Court justice.

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.